Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by defendants 1 to 32 in a suit for possession in respect of two houses brought by Mishrimal plaintiff against them and against Ganeshmal defendant No. 33.
(2.) THE case put forward in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the owner of the two houses in suit which are his ancestral property, that he and defendant No. 33 were in joint possession of it up to May 1942 and that in May 1942 defendants 1 to 32 took unlawful possession over the two houses. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 32, on the ground that they are transferees under a registered sale-deed dated 21. 5. 42 from Smt. Sirey Kunwar wife of Mishri Mal plaintiff in whose favour the two houses were gifted by Ganeshmal defendant No. 33 who is the father of Mishrimal plaintiff by means of a registered gift-deed dated 10. 7. 35. Interrogatories were served on the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 32 in answer to which he admitted that he is the son of Ganeshmal. But he denied any knowledge of the alleged gift-deed or the alleged sale-deed. He admitted that he had signed an insolvency application but alleged that he did so at the instance of his father and that he did not know the contents of it. According to the defendants 1 to 32 in the insolvency application filed on behalf of Ganeshmal and Mishrimal the three houses gifted under the gift-deed dated 10. 7. 35 were not shown as their own property by these persons and that only one house was shown in it and in the boundary of that house one of the gifted houses was described as belonging to Smt. Sirey Kunwar. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed out of which the following issues are relevant for purposes of the present application - Issue No. 1 - Whether the disputed houses were gifted by the father of the plaintiff on 10. 7. 35 in favour of Mst. Sirey Kunwar the wife of the plaintiff? Issue No. 2 - Whether Ganeshmal was entitled to gift the disputed houses? Issue No. 3 - Whether Mst. Sirey Kunwar sold the disputed houses on 21. 5. 42 in favour of the defendants after obtaining Rs. 5000/- and due to such transfer the defendants No. 1 to 32 became the absolute owners of the disputed houses? Issue No. 10 - Whether the plaintiff cannot bring a suit for possession without getting cancelled the gift deed and the sale deed mentioned in issue No. 8. Issue No. 11 - Whether the cause of action for cancellation of gift deed dated 10. 7. 35 and sale deed dated 21. 5. 42 as being time barred and if so whether the suit has become time barred due to that reason? The defendants filed an application before the trial court praying that the burden of proving issues 1, 2 and 4 should be placed on the plaintiff and that issue Nos. 10 and 11 should be decided as preliminary issues of law only under Order 14 Rule 2. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that the burden of proving issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had rightly been placed on defendants 1 to 32 and that issues Nos. 10 and 11 could not be said to be pure issues of law as the relevant facts which were necessary to dispose of them had not been admitted by the plaintiff. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the decision of the learned District Judge on both the points is correct. As has been pointed out above the execution of the gift deed or the sale deed has not been admitted on behalf of the plaintiff and that they have yet to be proved by the defendants. On behalf of defendants 1 to 32 reliance is placed on the observations made in Mohonlal vs. Rasuia (1) in para 5 and it is argued that as both the deeds are registered ones the burden is on the Plaintiff to disprove them. So far as the question of burden of proof is concerned there is a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nagori Ibrahim vs. Shahji Babumal (2) that no revision lies against wrong allocation of burden of proof. Apart from that in Mohanlal vs. Rasula (1) a registered sale deed was relied upon on behalf of the defendant purporting to have been executed by Chhagna, his son Maliya and one Sadasukh. The sale deed was filed but no witness identified the signatures of the executant on the sale deed. One of the defendant's witness Sonia however stated that he was present when Chhagna executed the sale deed in favour of Rasula. In the face of this evidence their Lordships relying on the decision of Privy Council in Gopal Das vs. Sri Thakurji (3) held that the sale deed had been sufficiently proved. What their Lordships of the Privy Council held was that "where the registrar's endorsements show shat in 1881 a person claiming to be P and to have become son of H. by adoption made by his widow M. presented the receipt for registration and admitted execution, and that he was identified by two persons one of whom was the scribe of the document and was known to the registrar,what remains to be shown is that the person admitting execution before the registrar was P and to importer. This question is one of fact". The Registrar's endor-sement showed that Chhagna was one of the executants of the sale deed. All that remained was to establish his identity. This identity was established by the evidence of Sonia. The sale deed was thus proved sufficiently from the evidence on record. It will thus be seen that mere production of the registered deeds is not sufficient to prove them. The identity of the executant has to be established by oral evidence before the deeds can be taken to have been proved. The burden of proving issues Nos. 1,2 and 4 has thus rightly (been placed on defendants 1 to 32. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned the burden of proving whether Ganeshmal was entitled to gift the two houses to his daughter-in-law was rightly placed on the defendants. The law on the point has been stated by Mulla in his Commentary on Hindu Law, Tenth Edition in Art. 226 in the following words: - A Hindu father or other managing member has power to make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for pious purposes. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 32 has not been able to draw my attention to any authority to the contrary. So far as issue No. 10 is concerned it cannot be said to be a pure question of law as it has not yet been admitted by the plaintiff that Ganeshmal executed any gift deed in favour of Smt. Sirey Kunwar or that Smt. Sirey Kunwar executed any sale deed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 32. Issue No. 11 would depend on the finding arrived at on issue No. 10. The stage for considering whether or not the decision in Sukhlal vs. Devilal (4) is applicable to the facts of present case will only be reached after the defendants have succeeded in proving the gift deed and the sale deed and in showing that Ganeshmal was entitled to gift the houses in dispute in favour of his daughter-in-law, Smt. Sirey Kunwar. I accordingly find that there is no force in this revision application and it is dismissed with costs. . ;